If the Kings are to take on Iman Shumpert and Channing Frye from the Cavaliers as has been reported (in addition to draft compensation), they would need to first clear up a roster spot.

Last season the Kings addressed a similar scenario by waiving Matt Barnes ahead of the DeMarcus Cousins trade in which they netted one additional player. This time around, however, the club could potentially benefit more from parlaying one of their prospects into something valuable than just outright releasing somebody.

While Richardson has been buried behind players like Bogdan Bogdanovic and Buddy Hield in the depth chart, Labissiere showed considerable promise following the Cousins deal that went down part-way through his rookie season.

Labissiere, still just 21 years old, is averaging 8.0 points and 4.4 rebounds per game in 2017/18 but posted 10.8 points and 6.0 rebounds in 22.4 minutes per game after the All-Star break in 2016/17 (sans Cousins).

He’s still extremely raw and he’s been inconsistent(his minutes have been too tho I’ll admit). But maybe Lakers give them 2 second rounders(throw in the bulls one) and get a first for randle it Nance they would do it I’d believe

So the lakers can get a first for nance or randle but skal is only worth a 2nd or possibly two…laughable. Denver’s second is practically worthless, probably sitting in the mid to late 40s as a playoff team. And a 2019 second round pick has low value as well, even if it is the bulls. Lakers would be lucky to get a pair of 2nds for Randle. His situation reminds me a lot of Noel’s in philly, impending FA who has failed to live up to the hype of being a lotto pick. I think the kings could fetch a protected first for skal, at the very least net some better 2nds than the lakers have to offer.

Randle is better than Skal. Randle has vastly improved his defense and brings energy. Ever since he was inserted into the starting lineup trade rumors of his have gone down because of how well he had played and Lakers realize they might make a mistake trading him

Randle is a RFA at the end of the year and the Lakers have little to no interest in keeping him (which, considering that roster, is saying a lot). He’s a PF, who can’t shoot from any distance (meaning a ceiling of a career backup). His trade value is close to zero.

He’s an above average player. He can’t shoot from deep but he gets a lot of points at the rim, rebounds well, and passes well. His value is low because people can just wait to pay him in the off season not because he’s a bad player.

I didn’t say he was a “bad” player. I said he has very little trade value (RFA is part of that, but that works in conjunction with likely not being a starting caliber player on a good team – how many starting 4’s can’t shoot the 3 these days?). Very hard to trade for a likely backup and then have to match any offer that some desperate team might throw out there. If the Lakers think he’s worth a 1st, then sign him in FA or match, and then 6 months later on trade him for that 1st. They obviously don’t have confidence he’ll net that. Though you’re free to.

I always thought Richardson had some upside, but even at the time I felt like he made a bad decision leaving Syracuse after a year. He needed more development, and it’s not like he was a lottery pick either.

I’ve been wondering when Richardson would hit the block, doesn’t make sense to keep him and not play him. As a Knicks fan from Trenton, I would love for them to pick him up, but he probably makes more sense for the 76ers.

I don’t understand. The Kings are one of the worst teams in the league with no hope for the playoffs. They have a 40 year old Vince Carter averaging 5 points per game. Why wouldn’t they just release him to open a roster spot? Why move a young player who has promise?

For a young team, leadership is more important. Veterans can keep the locker room in check and offer guidance. They’ll also get on the young players when they do something stupid or start developing bad habits.

Totally agree. The George Hill contract made no sense. Vince Carter’s contract is fine since its a 1 year deal and the Kings probably hoped they could flip him to a contender for something. Zach Randolph’s contract is kind of questionable, but its not a crazy amount of money and I could understand if their idea was to bring in a big who could actually score from outside the paint every so often. Plus, with the amount of young bigs they have, it doesn’t hurt to have a veteran big on their roster.

Getting to the cap floor was probably a big reason they gave out so many contracts since the large amount of rookie contracts will naturally keep the cap very low. It still stands that the George Hill contract is terrible. If they’re able to move him for Frye and Shump that would be a steal for them (depending on if the Kings have to give up anything else). The Kings also seem to not have any sense of direction. Obviously they’re going young, but outside of Fox, Hield, and Bogdanovic no one has really stepped up to look like a significant building block going forward. They have too many bigs who occupy the same space and do basically the same thing and their wing players don’t look promising outside of the two I mentioned above. Cauley-Stein is still a long way from being anything significant on offense, Giles is going to be an injury risk his entire career, and Justin Jackson seems like his ceiling might be a backup forward. Frank Mason might turn out into something decent, but he’s going to be blocked by Fox.

Neither seems like a roster clearing guy, particularly on a rebuilding team with plenty of fossils. I can see Richardson a little. Not Labissiere. They have lots of young guys, but (aside from Giles who’s out for the year) this guy is the only one that projects as a PF, is only 21 and is playing very well. Of course, who knows the asking price.